Irregular Times: News » Bumper Sticker Straw Poll for Clinton and Obama, Feb 17-23 2008

Bumper Sticker Straw Poll for Clinton and Obama, Feb 17-23 2008

Filed under Barack Obama, Democrats, Election 2008 by Jim at 11:29 am

Since Election Day 2004, we’ve kept track of committed support for various 2008 presidential contenders, indicated by sales of Election 2008 bumper stickers, magnets, campaign buttons, t-shirts and yard signs. While polls measure fickle opinions, our measure tracks the stronger commitment marked by the laying down of cash to promote a candidate in public. The more strongly committed are more likely to caucus and to vote. The following is the percent share of sales of our Election 2008 gear in the past week of February 17 to February 23, 2008:

Barack Obama 2008: 88.2%
Hillary Clinton 2008: 11.3%
Mike Gravel 2008: no sales whatsoever
Others: less than 1%

Two weeks ago, Obama gear outsold Clinton gear by a margin of 74.7%. This last week, the margin by which Obama outsold Clinton grew to 76.9%. The margin simply can’t get much larger. If this demonstration of differential commitment is matched by the differential commitment of monetary contributors, then Hillary Clinton is going to have a very tough time over the next eight days in getting her message to overpower Obama’s, unless she chooses to rely on the kind of media coverage of big-news stories that don’t drain her dwindling accounts. I’d correspondingly expect one of two tracks by the Clinton campaigns in Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas, and Vermont: capitulation or increasing sensationalism. To counter the ever longer and stronger Obama bandwagon, she doesn’t have much else.

[ ] [ RSS Feed of Comments ] [ permalink ]

4 Comments »

Sensationalism like when Hillary Clinton accused Barack Obama of using Karl Rove tactics - when Obama said Hillary Clinton’s plan would mandate health insurance and said that Hillary Clinton had a history of being for NAFTA. Since when is that Karl Rove tactics?!?

Karl Rove tactics are sending out push polls saying your opponent fathered mixed-race children out of wedlock. Karl Rove tactics are exposing undercover CIA agents in order to punish political dissent.

Agree or disagree with what Barack Obama says, but it’s ridiculous for Hillary Clinton to call them Karl Rove tactics.

Comment by J. Clifford — 2/24/2008 @ 11:39 am

When some poster came on here and said Obama was for the Military Commissions Act, you guys set him straight quickly enough. How about setting people straight on Hillary’s record on NAFTA? Neither she nor Obama has ever voted on NAFTA have they? And Hillary has a specific policy to change NAFTA, doesn’t she? And it is Obama’s health care plan that would not cover every American, and if someone showed up in the emergency room they would actually have to pay a fine for not having insurance before anybody would save their life. I heard Hillary say that about Obama’s plan in the Texas debate, and Obama did not correct her.

Why do you insist on fact checking for one candidate, but not for the other?

Comment by Iroquois — 2/24/2008 @ 1:04 pm

The actual mailer did not say Hillary Clinton voted for NAFTA.

Why don’t YOU check facts? The line “neither she nor Obama has ever voted on NAFTA” comes straight from the Hillary Clinton campaign. Why turn yourself into a passive vessel like that?

Comment by Jim — 2/24/2008 @ 3:03 pm

I’m not, I’m letting YOU do the research for me. Nice link, by the way.

This was also sort of interesting about Obama’s free trade record–did you see it?–it seems pretty well researched:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132×4728534

It says free trade does not enjoy as many supporters as it did back when it was first passed. It also says Hillary is to the left of Obama, who voted for the expansion of NAFTA in Peru, which Hillary voted against. Obama also voted against a bill on fast track trade authority which was supported by Hillary and labor. It says Obama attacked Hillary for calling for time-out for new trade agreements, which labor also supports. They say he was working for nuke firm Exelon and the drug industry in Peru, which both contributed heavily to his campaign.

They cite the following votes by Obama:

We know Obama supporters like to talk about National Journal ratings. Here is what the Journal said about Obama on trade: â€œbased on his positions in Illinois and the United States Senate, the National Journal concluded that Sen. Obama was “the most likely presidential candidate to support further trade liberalization.”

Date Bill Title Vote

12/04/2007 United States-Peru Trade Agreement NV
09/19/2006 U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement Implementation Y
06/29/2006 U.S. -Oman Free Trade Agreement Y
07/28/2005 CAFTA Implementation Bill N
06/30/2005 CAFTA Implementation Bill N

He also voted for the Bahrain trade agreement, which passed by unanimous consent in 2005.

He is on record as saying he supports Peru trade (more on that later) and, after Edwards loudly denounced South Korea trade, his office stood tall by releasing a statement criticizing it. Still if we give him the benefit of doubt on South Korea his record is not that bad. CAFTA was considered the big one and he opposed it. However, letâ€™s look at what he really believed about it. From his book:

â€œIt opened up new markets for U.S. agricultural producers, and promised much-needed foreign investment in poor countries like Honduras and the Dominican Republic. There were some problems with the agreement, but overall, CAFTA was probably a net plus for the U.S. economy.â€ (pg. 172)

Comment by Iroquois — 2/24/2008 @ 4:59 pm